Campaign Capers: Crank calls?

| 1 Comment
In his report on the election tabled in August 2011, [Chief Electoral Officer Marc] Mayrand made brief mention of the "crank calls" that incorrectly advised voters of changed polling locations but there was no indication that these were a widespread or coordinated effort. Mayrand said only the Commissioner of Canada Elections was investigating.

That's taken from an article by Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher that was published last Friday. It reports on email communications involving Elections Canada officials and Conservative Party representatives in the last few days of the 2011 federal election campaign. That article has certainly stirred things up again.

It's now quite clear that even before the polls had closed on May 2nd of last year — fully 18 months ago — some at EC were already suspicious that there had been an organized effort to mislead voters. That's a lot more serious than "crank calls" and their suspicions were directed at the Conservative Party of Canada. And now every line of investigation that came up empty because investigators were too slow to get there takes on new significance.

In the specific case of the search for Pierre Poutine, the perpetrator of the fraudulent robocalls in Guelph, there were security videos that were destroyed and server logs that were erased. There's even a person of interest who originally refused requests to be interviewed and has now moved to Kuwait where he apparently has an unlisted phone number. And perhaps most importantly, there's a transaction log from the CIMS, the CPC's voter tracking system, that has a convenient hole in it which prevents the identification of the party who downloaded the call list used to make the calls. The media reports made it sound as though the EC investigator politely requested the appropriate information from the Conservatives and waited for the party to cooperate. Why?

It would be very interesting to find out exactly when that transaction log was originally requested, how that request was framed and exactly how and when the CPC responded. Given that party's history of playing fast and loose with election law and being uncooperative with investigators, the natural reaction would be to go straight to a production order or even a search warrant, and secure the logs before they could be scrubbed. If that isn't what happened, why not?

And why, three months after his own officials had already raised the possibility of an organized effort at election fraud, was Marc Mayrand playing the whole matter down as "crank calls"? How much further along might the investigation be if Mayrand had attached more importance to the concerns expressed by his own officials and been more forthcoming about them in public? Because it was only in February of this year, six months after Mayrand's report, that the first investigative piece by McGregor and Maher pushed this into the spotlight and elicited a slew of fresh complaints from voters.

Elections Canada has promised a report by March 31st of next year to recommend revisions to election law. In preparation for that the agency recently published a discussion paper. It begins with a summary of the "alleged improper communications" that took place during last year's campaign, provides legal context and then discusses the challenges investigators face and suggestions for improving the agency's ability to enforce the law.

And earlier this week The Hill Times reported that the agency is "undertaking an unprecedented level of public consultation" in consideration of the issues involved. There are a number of complex issues such as the rapid development of technology and its implications for a 21st century election campaign, whether political parties should be subject to the Do Not Call registry and whether — and how — privacy laws should apply to the information gathered by political parties. That's in addition to the obvious question of whether there should be tougher penalties for violations.

It all looks very thorough and here's hoping that when the report is finally tabled, the Harper government takes it all to heart and makes sensible revisions to the governing legislation.

But new laws won't make much difference if they're not enforced. New investigative tools won't have much effect if investigators are reluctant to use them or don't bring them to bear until the trail's gone cold. And harsher penalties won't make a difference if no one is ever charged. In a McGregor and Maher article from earlier in the month they wrote:

The agency reports that its investigation into the "Pierre Poutine" robocalls that sent voters to the wrong poll in Guelph, Ont., on election day is ongoing, but concedes that there is only limited chance of Criminal Code charges resulting from that investigation.

It's entirely possible that an investigation moving at a faster pace wouldn't have made any difference. But it's hard to tell from here. If Elections Canada follows its normal practice of telling us as little as possible, this investigation could peter out without criminal charges being laid and we would never know the details surrounding it.

We have a right to know. If we're reviewing the laws that govern elections and the tools available to those who investigate possible violations of those laws, shouldn't we review the methods and performance of the investigating agency at the same time? If those who run the agency are in the mood to consult with the public to an unprecedented degree, perhaps they'd like to communicate with us to an unprecedented degree as well.

In that vein, recent revelations have prompted Democracy Watch to renew its call for full disclosure by Elections Canada regarding its handling of past complaints and for a public inquiry into the agency's methods and operations. You can read all about it.

Bookmark and Share                                

1 Comment

I count approx 12 or more blogsites that continuously track and explore meaningful electoral fraud investigation, evidence, denials, obstruction, timelines, participants. Thanks for being right at the top of my list. You know who the others are.. and I appreciate them as well.

I'm an artist/media generalist/writer, who's always been intrigued by lateral thinking.. problem solving, creative thinking... and here in Canada.. we have a problem. Edward de Bono posited that by stating the question or problem creatively, the answer was included.

I usually frame my 'stating the problem' around the electoral crime and the required assets, manpower, masking. The required mechanics involved in the crime and the 'escape' so to speak. This is about the 'HOW' and does not attempt to answer the 'WHO' or 'WHY'

Sometimes I frame based on 'Who Benefits'.. which is simple on the surface.. but motive and reward in this case may be very well hidden.. just as it may be right there in plain sight .. This framing is about the 'WHO' and the 'WHY'

Sometimes I frame instead on 'Who Loses' .. rather than 'Who Benefits..'
This is interesting.. one can 'win' or hold control by disempowering competitors,
blackmailing them or exerting other leverage upon them.

Sometimes I frame for more random or ridiculous or very dark rationales behind a comprehensive attack on a federal election. I won't express those publicly.. but this framing opens up very surprising factional or adversarial or motivated avenues.

I very much appreciate the effort of Elections Canada, in the face of the vast scope and nature of the challenge facing them.. plus the convoluted investigative limitations/roadblocks involved.. When the government of the country and citizens assaulted electorally holds all the legal resources and completely denies anything untoward happened aside from one riding.. its a stacked deck.

My summary .. identify exactly the 'HOW' .. reverse engineer the mechanics involved, the number of people required, the number of phone numbers, scripts, the amount of central command/coordination.. the data assets, the phone assets etc.. how it was all planned and executed and masked.

In other words, identify the size of the raiding party that attacked Canada from within.. or from wherever they were based.. or coordinated. This is basic forensics/investigation. If I hear another guess or bluster about one rogue operator I will puke. I want to know if we are looking for 5 - 10 - 25 - 50 - 100 - 500 perps.. just to operate the live and robo fraud

This specific attack followed a last gasp desperate in extremis defensive prorogue to avoid defeat.. and subsequently involved alleged election spending fraud, robo calling plus live calling fraud/suppression. It involved illegal voting, electoral officers errors while under pressure .. even worse, it likely employed vote moving tactics. http://www.votemoving.com/home.html
Allegedly, Conservative Party electorate data base assets as well as riding level or higher level conservative phone numbers were used.

My secondary and satirical summary .. This is either criminal and coverup achievement on the level of the Kennedy assassination.. (we will never know) or... there are folks who will live in infamy. No commemorative postage stamp of them posing beside an F-35.. or a Chinese tanker full of dilbit. And if there is a best selling biography.. or other book .. it will be due to scandal/infamy.. rather than exemplary service or honored legacy ..

Contributors

Tip Jar


Total donations to date: $115.00

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by pogge published on November 20, 2012 2:55 PM.

Friday night was the previous entry in this blog.

Campaign Capers: Democracy Watch update is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Blogging Change

Progressive Bloggers

      Canadian Blogosphere  

      Blogging Canadians  

NO Deep integration!

Creative Commons License
This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by Movable Type 4.37